Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #26 20120428 04:00:24
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Oh, and please omit the "Mr". That makes me feel like I'm my dad! "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #27 20120428 04:01:41
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Hi Bobby, "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #29 20120428 04:03:39
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Hi phrontister; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #30 20120428 04:12:04
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Hi Bobby, "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #31 20120428 04:14:05
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?I know they are also doomed. Have a pleasant night. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #32 20120428 04:14:27
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Oh...I can't do that! "Topic closed". What now? "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #33 20120428 04:16:02
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Sorry, it is closed pending MIF's review of it. I can do nothing right now about that. Please hold on to the clue and post tomorrow. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #34 20120428 04:16:50
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Ok. G'night. "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #35 20120428 04:17:34
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Okay, see you later. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #36 20120428 22:38:23
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?In my posts #14 & #17 I've now included a direct link to a video of animated calculation results so you can see the effect of the iterations. Last edited by phrontister (20120429 03:55:29) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #37 20130503 19:17:41
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Hi Bobby, Code:c = 0; For[i = 0, i < 10000, i++, If[StringCount[ToString[FromDigits[RandomInteger[1, 10]]], "1111"] > 0, c = c + 1]]; N[c/i*100 "%"] Version B: Code:N[Total[StringCount[Table[ToString[FromDigits[RandomInteger[1, 10]]], {10000}], "1111"]]/10000*100 "%"] The problem with version B is that it counts multiple occurrences of "1111" in an element: eg, "1111011110" scores 2 wins instead of 1, which incorrectly inflates the result. Last edited by phrontister (20130503 19:19:11) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #38 20130503 19:26:07
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?This problem is also in another thread. I have not gone into it because the OP over there is not ready for a better idea. You unfortunately are. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #39 20130503 19:28:41
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Yes, I saw that thread and I agree with you, which is why I posted here. Last edited by phrontister (20130503 19:30:01) "The good news about computers is that they do what you tell them to do. The bad news is that they do what you tell them to do."  Ted Nelson #40 20130503 19:43:07
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Are you attempting to solve this with a simulation? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #41 20130503 20:02:59
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Have you tried using Code:If[StringFreeQ[...,"1111"],0,1] The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #42 20130503 20:08:47
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?The right way is not to simulate but to enumerate. I am getting 251 / 1024. The stupidity of the question is monumental! Why would they want to do a simulation of 10000 trials when there are only 1024 possibilities? Code:s = Tuples[{0, 1}, 10]; (Cases[s, {___, 1, 1, 1, 1, ___}] // Length)/1024 B) Can be adjusted like this, Code:(Select[StringCount[ Table[ToString[FromDigits[RandomInteger[1, 10]]], {10000}], "1111"], # > 0 &] // Length)/10000. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #43 20130503 20:50:03
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Instead of Cases[...]//Length you can just use Count[...]. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #44 20130503 20:57:42
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Hi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #45 20130503 21:00:51
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Yes, but if we wanted a simulation, phro's way is a good way to go. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #46 20130503 21:04:07
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Not exactly, string operations are not necessary. It is more convenient to work with the preferred container of M. Lists! In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #47 20130503 21:06:05
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?I meant, in the sense of idea, bot in te sense of implementation. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #48 20130503 21:12:50
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?The first bit of code does run a good simulation. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #49 20130503 21:35:45
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?Here is my own code with no strings: Code:Count[Table[RandomInteger[], {10000}, {10}], {___, 1, 1, 1, 1, ___}]/10000 // N Last edited by anonimnystefy (20130503 21:37:32) The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #50 20130503 21:45:23
Re: anyone good with doing math on excel?You will find this to be faster: Code:Count[Table[ RandomVariate[DiscreteUniformDistribution[{0, 1}], 10], {10000}], {___, 1, 1, 1, 1, ___}] In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. 